ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts / Political

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 1: Let There Be Truth

by 3 Comments

I recently finished reading “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice” by Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian abortionist in the United States. I was interested in this book for two reasons: first, since Dr. Parker is an abortionist, his proximity to the practice gives him a unique perspective and opportunity for insight when it comes to the abortion debate that I felt was worth being familiar with. Second, I have become increasingly perturbed by the disconcerting phenomenon of Christians taking a pro-abortion stance and using the Bible to defend their position; thus, I wanted to read Dr. Parker’s attempt to justify abortion using a Biblical framework

Now, as someone who has written a book myself, I have some degree of respect for those who are capable of communicating their beliefs, ideas, and passions in a book. In short, I picked up Dr. Parker’s book with this tentative position of default respect. However, I was surprised—impressed, even—at how quickly he lost my respect. It was not the caliber of his writing that lost me, which was consistently clear, articulate, and grammatically correct. Rather, it was his analysis—or, shall I say, his lack thereof.

I will launch a full-scale critique of Dr. Parker’s “argument” another time, perhaps once I have regained more of my composure and recovered more fully from the shock of just how poorly researched, supported, and reasoned it is. For the time being, I will limit my critiques to something that Dr. Parker referred to ad nauseam and claimed to promulgate: truth.

Context: In the prologue to his book, Dr. Parker writes that he is constantly “travelling the country like a twenty-first-century Saint Paul, preaching the truth about reproductive rights…” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 5). I confess that, when I first read those words, I physically cringed, irked by the fact that Dr. Parker seems to think so highly of himself and his work that he felt entitled to compare himself to the man who is credited with writing 13 books of the Bible, the most influential book and the bestselling book of all time. Forgive my less biased perception of Dr. Parker, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison.

There is, however, an equally problematic reference that Dr. Parker makes in that same quote. It is his reference to “the truth about reproductive rights”. For someone who writes “I don’t believe in moral absolutes” and “I don’t think of the world in terms of good and evil”, Dr. Parker sure speaks a lot about “truth” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 195 and 202). Unfortunately, the “truth” he speaks of was shockingly, frequently untrue. (Perhaps this is reflective of his unbelief in “moral absolutes”—perhaps “truth” is as malleable, inconsequential, and subjective for him as morality seems to be.)

The first time I found a statement that is objectively, verifiably untrue in Dr. Parker’s book, I was immediately incensed and deeply disturbed, as my boyfriend can attest. In the middle of the chapter of his book ironically called “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the following assertion:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two-week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 150) [emphasis added].

(As an aside, note that Dr. Parker is making the peculiar and weak claim that the supposed inevitability of a premature child’s death means that he or she is not a “person.” At the risk of spoiling a future blog post that I will write on this statement and Dr. Parker’s similarly cringe-worthy “analysis”, let me state unequivocally right now that, if the inevitability of death is grounds for denying the preborn child personhood, then no living human is a person, since we will all eventually die. Dr. Parker is arguing in this section that life does not begin at conception and, by extent, that the human fetus is neither alive nor valuable. He is arguing this on the grounds that the child’s viability and survival are still in question. Let me simply ask this question: How can someone die if they are not alive? Rest assured, I shall return to this tragic—dare I say, non-viable—line of reasoning in a future blog post.)

At first glance, his comments seem persuasive. Dr. Parker is a doctor, after all. In fact, he is an ob-gyn. Surely he, of all people, can be trusted. Surely he, of all people, will speak the truth.

But, for Dr. Parker, the truth seems to be irrelevant. This may seem unnecessarily harsh; however, as someone who cares deeply and personally for actual truth, I think the severity of my critique is justified because of how verifiably untrue Dr. Parker’s claims are.

As it so happens, I have looked into viability before, and so I knew with certainty that Dr. Parker’s claim that no child born at twenty-two weeks can ever be viable is demonstrably untrue. Premature children born before twenty-two weeks have survived with medical assistance. For many years, the youngest recorded preemie was James Elgin Gill, a Canadian man born in 1988. He was born at a mere 21 weeks and 5 days, setting a record as the world’s most premature baby. However, USA Today reported in 2017 that a new record was set by a baby girl who was born at just 21 weeks and 4 days. And then there is Amilia Taylor, born in 2006 in the United States at just 21 weeks and 6 days.

Each of these individuals—born before twenty-two weeks gestation—is living proof that Dr. Parker’s seemingly reliable statements and bold declarations of “cannot”, “will not”, and “not ever” are little more than reckless overstatements that he made to support his pro-abortion position about “viability”. With a simple Google search that took me less than two minutes, I was able to find three cases that contradict Dr. Parker’s assertions and demonstrate that premature children born before twenty-two can, in fact, survive outside of the womb with medical support. And yet, because Dr. Parker is a doctor, his falsehoods carry an air of reliability and professionalism, and have been dispersed en masse to the public. I am grieved by the knowledge that there are likely now hundreds and thousands of individuals around the world who have innocently placed their trust in Dr. Parker, expecting to receive the truth, and, through no fault of their own, have accepted his flagrant falsehoods as scientific facts.

This was not the only factual inaccuracy in Dr. Parker’s book. Contradictions abound. Take, for instance, Dr. Parker’s discussion of pro-life legislative measures that have recently been enacted in the United States. On page 146, Dr. Parker writes:

Bills proposing that fetuses are people have come before legislatures in at least twenty-eight states. None have passed [emphasis added].

A mere eight pages later, Dr. Parker directly contradicts himself in his discussion on fetal personhood and related legislation, where he states:

In 2016, “personhood” bills were introduced in Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, South Caroline, and Virginia. The only state in which such a bill has passed has been Kansas, which in 2013 affirmed the Pro-Life Protection Act, declaring that “life beings at conception.” [emphasis added].

Note that, in a few short pages, we have gone from every single bill “proposing that fetuses are people” failing to “such a bill” passing in Kansas. Once again, Dr. Parker demonstrates that his view of truth is like his view of morality: lacking absolutes and free to toss around, manipulate, and twist to suit one’s personal or rhetorical preferences.

There is one final factual inconsistency that I will expose before I leave this preliminary element of my critique of Dr. Parker’s demonstrably defunct “argument”. On page 117, Dr. Parker repeats the same, tired rhetoric that “[t]he Bible does not contain the word ‘abortion’ anywhere in it” in a pitiful attempt to justify abortion through a Biblical worldview. And yet, on page 207, he writes:

In my view, the only Christianity that mandates an anti-abortion view is an emotion-based faith—a rigid reading of Scripture that invites no questioning or interpretive consideration [emphasis added].

Now, I will save my comments about Dr. Parker’s so-called “Christian” faith for a later blog post. For now, I would simply like to point out the completely contradictory nature of asserting that the Bible is (a) completely void of any commentary on abortion whatsoever on the one hand, and then (b) asserting that only a literal, “rigid reading” of the Bible could result in a Christian coming to a pro-life worldview on the other hand.

After reading his book, my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s only contributions to the abortion debate are slightly more articulate versions of the same illogical, contradictory, factually-flawed mantras and slogans that already contaminate what could otherwise be rational, scientific, intellectually-honest conversations on the subject of abortion. If anything, his willingness to wield his professional credibility in defence of this unprofessional nonsense and throw his weight as a doctor around in order to convince people of the credibility of the blatant falsehoods he has peddled is the only additional damage that Dr. Parker has done—and, believe me, it is damage he has done to his own side, not to the pro-life community.

Dr. Parker may care a great deal about the practice of abortion. But of objective, verifiable, absolute truth Dr. Parker seems to care very little.

With that, I shall move forward in my critique; my next post will examine a premise central to his rhetoric: the merger of his dubious Christianity and his intellectually vacant “moral argument for choice.”

The State of Freedom in Canada

by 2 Comments

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” – John G. Diefenbaker

This quote was shared in one of my law classes a few weeks ago. I can only imagine the way John Diefenbaker felt when he wrote those words. Perhaps he was worried about the state of his country, and therefore all the more passionate about passing the Canadian Bill of Rights. Perhaps he was proud of the nation he helped govern. As I read these words, I sense a mixture of pride and passion, a combination of satisfaction at the state of Canada at the time and of determination to ensure that Canada remained founded in such freedom.

I wonder what Prime Minister Diefenbaker would think of our nation now.

I am concerned: concerned for our nation and concerned for the security of the lofty ideal we call freedom. Maybe I am too cynical for my own good. But freedom, I am discovering, is an endangered species. Freedom is an invaluable ideal that has been choked by progressives, chastised by political correctness, and condemned by radical ideologies.

I am afraid that John Diefenbaker’s words are no longer as true as they once were. If he were to speak these words today, I fear that they would need the following updates:

“I am a Canadian. I am free to speak without fear, unless my university dislikes what I say. I am free to worship in my own way, unless my beliefs offend someone – then I will be denied the ability to care for children and denied the ability to associate with like-minded individuals. I am free to stand for what I think right, unless I am a pro-life person who gets too close to an abortion clinic. I am free to oppose what I believe wrong, unless I am a pro-life physician who refuses to provide abortion, birth control, or euthanasia & assisted suicide. I am free to choose those who shall govern my country, unless I am a pro-life person trying to run in politics or trying to access state-run employment subsidization programs. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind personkind (but only for those who agree with state-sanctioned secularism and who bow to government ideological coercion on issues like abortion).”

Freedom, you see, is not what it used to be.

There is hope, of course. Students are rallying, lawyers are fighting back, and courageous everyday Canadians are refusing to let liberty be wrenched from their hands. Freedom may be endangered, but it is not extinct.

We must, however, remain vigilant. We must remain alert and attentive, refusing to let distractions destroy our determination.

To those of you who do not care, or to those of you who doubt the severity of the situation, I challenge you to read the words of Martin Neimöller. He knew a thing or two about the dangers of complacency and apathy. You would be wise not to make them your bedfellows mistresses  partners.

To those of you who fear, like I do, for the state of freedom in Canada, I encourage you to pray, to fight, to act, to speak, to stand, to remain, and to pray some more. And perhaps, when you hear the national anthem play, do what I do and relish being able to sing that one line just a little bit louder.

May God truly keep our land glorious and free.

Beware of the pro-choice echo chamber

by 2 Comments

Ten years. I have been doing pro-life activism for ten years. (I feel old just writing that…)

I have always been 100% pro-life, because I am convinced that is the only intellectually consistent position to hold. Unsurprisingly, when I first started my journey into the realm of pro-life activism, I had many pro-abortion advocates challenge my absolute pro-life stance. They presented complex arguments and asked difficult questions:

What if a woman is sexually assaulted? What if there is an ectopic pregnancy? What if a 10-year-old child becomes pregnant? Will you still condemn abortion in these situations?

Whether the pro-choicers asking these questions really wanted to hear my response or not, they were successful at drawing my attention to the complexity inherent within the abortion debate. Admittedly, at the young age of twelve, my burgeoning pro-life activist self had not yet considered these nuances. And so, spurred on by the desire to find answers to these ambiguities, I committed myself to research, intellectual curiosity, and the pursuit of understanding. Over time, I developed a well-informed, comprehensive, bulletproof pro-life message.

And then, after a few years of pro-life activism, I came to the fateful day when I realized that there were no new arguments or questions anymore. Each “new” question was simply a recycled, repackaged repetition of a question I had already answered. And no matter how hard I tried, I could not find a new challenge to end this perpetual cycle.

I was stuck in what I have come to call the “pro-choice echo chamber”.

The pro-choice echo chamber is a place where the same meaningless slogans and mindless mottos are repeated over and over again, where there is no growth, no development, no opportunity to improve, just the same empty words reverberating through hollow corridors, being used and reused and used again.

My body, my choice! Keep your rosaries off my ovaries! My body, my choice! You’re just pro-birth! My body, my choice! It’s just a clump of cells! My body, my choice! My body, my choice! My body, my choice! My body, my choice…!

And so the pro-choice echo chamber continues.

I have heard it all. Perhaps that sounds arrogant, but it is true. After ten years of listening to pro-choice rhetoric, I have come to conclude that there is nothing new under the sun.

But two weeks ago, something miraculous happened…

I was with a group of law students, and we had just come from a deeply fascinating presentation about statutory interpretation. (And yes, I am aware that only a law geek such as myself would find statutory interpretation “deeply fascinating”…)

Eventually, we came to the subject of abortion. After outing myself as being a pro-life absolutist, we began an hour-long conversation on abortion. The conversation was remarkably respectful, incredibly thought provoking, and refreshingly coherent. And then, for the first time in approximately seven years, I was asked a question that I could not answer.

Now, to be fair, I actually did have an answer. When I was asked the question, I offered my usual, polished, well-rehearsed response. But instead of my fellow pro-lifers nodding their heads and the opposing pro-choicers shaking their fists, the students around the table thoughtfully considered my words. And then, rather than devolving into emotionally-driven retorts, they pushed me further, challenging the premises of my reply, inquiring further about my line of reasoning, and pointing out inconsistencies between my default response and my absolute pro-life stance.

I was surprised. And impressed. And, believe it or not, incredibly thankful.

Because here’s the thing: I love being challenged. Nothing breeds growth, development, and strength like the persistent presence of civilized, coherent challenges.

It’s a universal truth: the existence of resistance creates the opportunity for improvement. This is true of physical strength and emotional fortitude, but it is also true of ideological advancement.

The unfortunate reality is that, despite the fact that I have purposely pursued pro-choice friendships—in part to avoid the dangers of the pro-life echo chamber—many pro-choice individuals have never welcomed ideological resistance, and so they have little to offer in that department.

To be clear, I have seen this in the pro-life movement as well, so I am not suggesting that this is a uniquely pro-choice phenomenon. However, because all mainstream spheres of our society—including education, academia, politics, media, business, entertainment, and law—buy into the pro-abortion ideology, the pro-choice echo chamber is validated, rather than shunned. It is embraced with open arms, welcomed without critique, and deified rather than destroyed. And for that reason, the pro-choice movement has become condemned to perpetually suffer from intellectual inconsistency and a lack of rhetorical creativity.

In short, the pro-choice movement is stagnant.

So beware, dear readers. Beware of the pro-choice echo chamber. (And, while you’re at it, beware of the pro-life echo chamber too.)

If you are pro-life, guard against these phenomena by surrounding yourself with intellectually curious pro-choice individuals who are willing to consistently and respectfully challenge your ideology.

If you are pro-choice, guard against the desire to repeat meaningless phrases or regurgitate mindless sayings by pursuing pro-life friends who promote constructive and civilized conversations.

I have adopted this approach in my activism, and I have never once regretted it. I am more consistent, intelligent, and coherent because of the pro-choice ideological challenges that I have faced and—thanks to some brilliant pro-choice friends—I now face again.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a new challenge to consider. I will let you all know when I am ready to reveal my response.

Until then, stay intellectually curious and ideologically consistent.

Pro-life feminism vs. pro-abortion hypocrisy

by 4 Comments

Recently, as part of a personal feminist book-a-thon, I read F-Bomb: Dispatches from the War on Feminism by Lauren McKeon. I was particularly intrigued and interested in reading the book for two reasons. First, I know Lauren McKeon personally. She and I spent a fair amount of time together for an article that she wrote about me in Toronto Life Magazine. Second, I had been notified that her book talked about me and a number of my fellow pro-life activists. All that to say: I was curious to read what she had written and what her take was on my overtly pro-life feminist stance.

The book was engaging and well written, although I found myself slightly irritated for most of the book because there were no sources provided. (Call me a nerdy university student, but if you’re going to make grandiose claims and rather outlandish accusations, you’d better back them up with evidence.)

Then I came to Chapter 8, which is titled “Teen spirit: Clinic closures, access attacks, and the pro-woman rebranding of today’s anti-abortion activists.” And this is where things went downhill.

I had hoped that, unlike most pro-abortion feminists, McKeon would have taken time to truly get to know the pro-life feminist movement. She had been relatively fair for the duration of the book, having the decency to humanize her opponents prior to critiquing them (which is an approach that I found quite effective and engaging). Unfortunately, McKeon’s evaluation of pro-life feminists such as myself fell woefully short.

Things really fell apart for me when she made the following accusation:

“The linguistic pairing of anti-abortion and pro-women messaging is like a conversational escape hatch for those who don’t want to admit they’re limiting women’s rights, even though they are” (McKeon, 2017, p. 201).

*sigh*

In case you are wondering, this is one of the most overused “arguments” that pro-abortion advocates like to level at pro-life individuals.

Pro-tip for all of you pro-abortion individuals out there: This argument is really, really weak, so you might want to try mixing things up a bit.

There are two key claims that work together to create this rhetorical mess:

First, there is the accusation that, by opposing abortion, pro-life people are “limiting women’s rights”. If you believe that a woman has the right to exercise coercive control over the body of another human being, and if you believe that a woman has the right to ask a physician to end the life of this other human being, then sure—you got me! I’m limiting a woman’s rights! But in order to make that claim, you would need to show me where, in any legal or constitutional document, women are actually guaranteed these “rights”.

Spoiler alert: You won’t find any legal or constitutional document protecting these “rights” because these “rights” do not exist.

Second, there is the assertion that, by limiting women’s “rights”, pro-life people are doing something wrong. Now, in order to highlight how ludicrous this claim is, allow me to layout a hypothetical situation:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I attack someone on the street. You call the police. The police arrest me. I accuse you and the police of limiting my rights. I am implying that you have done something wrong. Do I have a fair point?

Absolutely not.

While I may have the right to liberty, the Criminal Code provisions against battery and assault directly limit my right to liberty. In fact, these limitations are necessary in order to ensure that you and other citizens have your right to liberty. If these limitations were not in place, all manner of rights would be infringed upon. Therefore, in order to ensure social order, peace, and stability, limitations are placed on our rights on a regular basis. And it is undeniable that, while these limitations may restrict my personal right to liberty (which I interpret subjectively as bad), they create greater collective liberty in society (which we acknowledge objectively is good).

So just because pro-life people want to limit women’s “right” to forcibly control the body of another human being (which we have already established is not actually a right in the first place), does not automatically follow that pro-life people are doing something bad—or that we are creating “a way for society to control women”, as McKeon later asserts (McKeon, 2017, p. 201).

But this wasn’t the only stale, pro-abortion, isolationist tactic that McKeon relied upon. She also played the age-old you-can’t-call-yourself-a-feminist-if-you’re-anti-choice card, stating that the “anti-abortion movement’s women’s rights makeover” is “at odds” with the “wider feminist movement” because “[f]eminism, after all, generally works to broaden what we can do and achieve, not restrict it” (McKeon, 2017, p. 218).

As overused and unimaginative as this accusation may be, I think it is one of my favourite, primarily because it beautifully highlights the absurd degree of hypocrisy—and the painful lack of logic—within the “pro-choice” movement. Here is what that argument is really saying:

“You can’t choose to be a feminist. Real feminists support choice! And you, obviously, don’t support choice. And since I am a real feminist who supports all women’s choices, I’m not going to allow you to choose to identify as a feminist. I don’t support that choice because I am a real feminist who actually supports women’s choices….” (and so the idiocy continues).

My hope is that, as you read and re-read those lines, you will see the glaringly obvious double standard that “pro-choice” feminists have created, with the express purpose of excluding, ostracizing, and demonizing pro-life feminists. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in that line of “reasoning” (if you can call it that), then you will have successfully rendered me speechless (for all the wrong reasons).

Before I close, there is one last statement I’d like to highlight from the epilogue of McKeon’s book. McKeon is in the midst of appealing to her (she presumes) sympathetic readers and reminding them of how she hopes “we can learn to listen more to the other side” (McKeon, 2017, p. 269). And then she says this:

“But I do believe we have to let go of our liberal superiority, the belief that clearly reprehensible views aren’t powerful enough to gain mass traction” (McKeon, 2017, p. 269).

Now, to be fair, McKeon has discussed many views throughout her book, so she is not leveling this statement exclusively at pro-lifers. But there is something so beautifully ironic about McKeon counseling her readers to “let go of [their] liberal superiority”, while she simultaneously puts on a brilliant display of her own sense of liberal superiority by blanket-labeling entire segments of the population—including all pro-lifers—as holding “clearly reprehensible views”.

My pro-life feminism may be a reprehensible view to her, but it is a justifiable and logically consistent view to me. And the fact that she and other radical pro-abortion feminists like her feel entitled to exclude me and my fellow pro-life feminists from their supposedly inclusive, tolerant spaces tells me that their version of feminism is undeniably deceptive, elitist, and hypocritical. And that seems “clearly reprehensible” to me.

Kavanaugh is all about Roe v. Wade

by Leave a Comment

This is a great little video clip about Lila Rose, done by The Atlantic, one of my favourite magazines.

I enjoyed the clip–it says why you can be a feminist pro-lifer.

But I’m posting it here primarily because it also does something else.

In the thorny, divisive terrain of the hearings over Supreme Court nominee Justice Brett Kavanaugh, I had a recent conversation with a friend who, speaking of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault against him said this: “If she’s not telling the truth, I don’t know why she would do this.”

My friend is a good woman, and not at all involved in pro-life anything.

So why might there be reason to question Ford’s testimony?

If you watch to the end of the Lila Rose video clip, it concludes with her saying she believes she’ll see the end of legalized and culturally accepted abortion in her lifetime.

And for those on the other side, so to speak, this is the great fear. The fear becomes more real when any pro-life justice takes that empty seat on the Supreme Court.

This article, also from The Atlantic, features a woman whose rapist apologized to her after she reached out to him years later. It’s a story of redemption, and worth reading in its own right. But at the end, the author writes this:

My rapist promised to pay it forward, this horrible thing he’d just learned about himself. I have no doubt, judging by the admirable life he’s led, he will. And I will keep my promise to him never to reveal his name.

But you know what? If he were being confirmed for the Supreme Court; if his decision over what would happen to my daughter’s body, should she become inadvertently pregnant, would tip the scales away from Roe; if one of the key aspects of his job as a judge would be to show and to have shown good judgment over the course of his life, you better believe that I, like Ford, would come forward and tell the committee. Even if it meant going into hiding, as she’s had to do. Even if it meant getting death threats, as she’s received.

The life of my daughter is at stake. Her bodily autonomy is at stake. As a mother who grew up being groped at house parties in the ’80s, I want to make sure that whoever is passing judgment on the next generation has, at the very least, judgment to pass.

This is not a statement about the veracity of either side in the Kavanaugh hearings. What it is is an explanation for those who are not at all even thinking about Roe v. Wade.

I don’t believe we can really underestimate the extent to which some people will go to ensure no pro-life justice ever gets that seat. It can’t be Kavanaugh. It can’t be anyone who might tip the scales away from Roe.

Both sides believe their children’s lives are at stake–and that mentality sheds light on why this particular nomination has been so gruesome.

Update: This article by Jonathon Van Maren also points to abortion as the source of the vitriol.

 

The danger of a single “anti-choice” story

by 2 Comments

“Show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become.” – Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie

Recently, thanks to a video that was circulated around on Facebook, I was re-introduced to the work of Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie, a renowned Nigerian author and feminist. I had first studied her work during my days in feminist academia. This is where I first learned about her idea of the single story.

In simplified form, Nzogi Adichie’s idea of the single story is this: when media, popular culture, and other societal forces work together and create a single story, a monolithic representation of an entire group of people, the nuance and heterogeneity that exists within the group is erased and they become known by that single story and only that single story.

If we take a moment to pause and consider the world we live in today, we will realize that single stories are being sold to us every day by news outlets, social media, and any individual who has a vested interest in targeting and undermining a specific group of people.

I see this happening to political groups and religious groups, racial minorities and sexual minorities. And, to some extent, these single stories are being noticed and exposed. However, there is a single story that I see perpetuated in almost every area of mainstream society. This is the single story about pro-life or “anti-choice” individuals.

The singly “anti-choice” story goes something like this:

All “anti-choicers” are, as the name suggests, anti-choice. They do not care about life, but rather only care about limiting women’s reproductive freedoms and controlling women’s bodies. “Anti-choicers” are almost exclusively old white Catholic men who shake signs in women’s faces and scream that women who have abortions are murderers. They are all sexist and misogynistic creeps who refuse to respect women’s bodily autonomy, and they only really care about children until they are born. “Anti-choicers” are heartless and compassionless, not to mention deceptive, ignorant, and hateful. In short, they are horrible people. All of them.

This is the single story of the pro-life movement. And it is this single story that erases all of the difference and nuance, diversity and heterogeneity within the pro-life community.

The truth of the matter is that the pro-life community is comprised of millions of diverse individuals who differ in culture, gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, and religion. For example, despite being rather small at the time, the pro-life club at my university was comprised of students who stand in stark contrast to the “old, white, Catholic man” stereotype that the single “anti-choice” story perpetuates. We had students who were secular/atheistic, LGBTQ2+, Muslim, and racialized/people of colour. Most of our club members were also female students.

The problem with the single “anti-choice” story is that it fails to represent the beauty and diversity that exists within the pro-life movement. Instead, it creates a fraudulent representation of “anti-choicers” and projects that on all pro-life individuals. The end result is that mainstream society develops a false understanding of the pro-life community, remains ignorant and blind to the reality of who pro-life people are and what they represent, perpetuates this deceptive discourse using everything from university professors to media outlets, and then uses this ignorant, deceptive, and monolithic representation of “anti-choicers” to justify perpetrating hatred, aggression, and violence against pro-life individuals.

The single “anti-choice” story has been used to justify the recent Bubble Zone legislation in Ontario that limits free speech for pro-life individuals (which was justified by claiming that “anti-choicers” are all violent).

The single “anti-choice” story has also been used to argue that physicians and healthcare providers who have religious/moral objections to providing certain services (such as abortion and birth control) should be forced to go against their convictions and provide the services. This is justified because “anti-choice” physicians and healthcare providers are viewed as being religious fanatics who are trying to force their beliefs on other people, which follows the faulty depiction of all “anti-choicers” as Catholic (or even just religious). Unfortunately, there is no space made for the truth, which is that pro-life physicians and health care professionals are autonomous men and women from a variety of religious or secular backgrounds who choose, for personal, professional, or religious reasons, not to engage in certain practices/provide certain services (and who have a constitutionally protected right to do so, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

The single “anti-choice” story fuels confusion, misinformation, and deception. It creates division, isolation, and polarization. Perhaps more than anything else, it breeds stupidity, idiocy, and ignorance. By creating a two-dimensional, monolithic representation of pro-life individuals, pro-abortion pundits are able to avoid answering difficult questions, engaging in constructive conversation, and addressing important concerns that pro-life people raise when discussing the issue of abortion (and other issues that fall within the pro-life worldview). Not only is this lazy, but it actually does a disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

The single “anti-choice” story creates a generation of ignorant, uneducated, radical pro-abortion activists who have memorized meaningless rhetoric but lack arguments with substance. And, when we consider the importance of the abortion debate in protecting human rights, addressing crisis pregnancies, and supporting women in need, this ultimately harms the men, women, and children whose lives are affected by abortion is life-altering (and life-ending) ways.

This must stop. We must put an end to the single “anti-choice” story, not only by holding pro-abortion groups and mainstream media outlets accountable, but also by actively contributing to the multitude of diverse pro-life stories that exist internationally.

So if you are a pro-life individual, stand strong. Be proud of your pro-life stance. Share your story. And let the diversity of the pro-life movement be seen.

What the California crisis pregnancy centre court decision really means

by 3 Comments

I have noticed that there is a lot of misinformation being spread about the NIFLA v Becerra decision that was recently released by the US Supreme Court. (Case in point, this statement.) So let’s set the record straight:

The impetus for the NIFLA v Becerra case was a 2015 law passed in California. Colloquially referred to as the “Reproductive FACT Act”, this law mandated that pro-life crisis pregnancy centres provide information to their clients about how to access a state-funded abortion.

Contrary to the claims of some (pro-abortion) news outlets, this case was ultimately not about the issue of abortion. Not really. While the case involved this Californian law that sought to control the actions of crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), the crux of this case had little to do with abortion, reproductive rights, or even CPCs.

The truth is that this decision focused squarely on one key concept: free speech.

In his concurring statement in the NIFLA v Becerra decision, Justice Kennedy wrote the following:

Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the entire NIFLA v Becerra case was about. Because, while this Californian law was lauded as a glorious advancement in women’s empowerment, the reality is that it was merely masquerading as an initiative to protect reproductive rights. Behind its thinly-veiled feminist veneer, this law had a much more sinister goal: namely, ushering in the reign of ideological totalitarianism.

You see, this Californian law sought to force CPCs to promote abortion to their clients. Perhaps you, like me, find this deeply offensive because you believe abortion is morally reprehensible. Or perhaps not. But even if you and I cannot agree that abortion is morally wrong, that is beside the point.

The real danger in this law was that is sought to destroy free speech. It sought to enforce the perspective of a select few on the entire population of California.

So the Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v Becerra was not a victory for pro-life groups. It was a victory for all individuals. Because this victory was ultimately a victory for freedom of speech. And, had the Supreme Court not intervened and struck down this law, the freedom of speech of all individuals – pro-life and pro-abortion – would have been jeopardized.

Perhaps the most ironic fact of all is that, even as pro-abortion groups rage about this outcome, they directly benefit from this decision. After all, it is free speech that has shaped our society in such a way that we are even able to express our displeasures with a Supreme Court decision or have a respectful debate about abortion at all.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion – whether you are a radical pro-abortion feminist or whether you, like me, believe women deserve better than abortion – June 26th, 2018 is a day for all of us to remember with grateful hearts. Because, as Martin Neimöller so eloquently stated, limitations of freedoms will inevitably affect us all.

 

And they call this “feminist”

by 1 Comment

The Canadian budget document, #YourBudget2018, is easily one of the more patronizing government documents I’ve ever read.

So I wrote this column about it in the National Post.

Imagine with me for a second that the budget focused so much on men. Imagine that Budget 2018 referenced men 708 times instead of women. Men — we need to coax you into nursing! Men — not enough of you are kindergarten teachers! Men — don’t take time off with your children when they are young! Men — you can’t choose more paternity benefits — these are “use it or lose it” for women, only! If that sounds pushy, it’s because it is.

Welcome to the world of “feminism means what I say it means,” courtesy of our current Liberal government.

Successful social movements are inclusive

by 5 Comments

This article from late January by Michael Gerson gets at some important angles on the abortion debate that I had not thought about before.

It is the antiabortion movement that appeals to inclusion. It argues for a more expansive definition of the human community. It opposes ending or exploiting one human life for the benefit of another. There are heart-rending stories that prevent the simplistic application of this approach. But most of the antiabortion men and women I know have the genuine and selfless motivation of trying to save innocent lives.

Inclusion and expansion instead of exclusion and autonomy–are just some of the concepts he gets at. Worth reading.

Social inclusion, for all. (Including people in wheelchairs at running races.)

Ideological purity test to receive funding for interns

by 4 Comments

Discussed the government’s requirement of an ideological purity test (I support “reproductive rights”) in order for small business and not-for-profits to receive funding for summer interns with John Oakley on AM 640 yesterday. Very pleased he took the issue on. Less pleased with my meandering replies here but the gist is this: The Charter is intended to protect conscience rights, not transgress them. And while the Liberals want to stick it to anti-abortion groups, they are in effect creating a chill for all charities who will not check that nebulous box saying they support “reproductive rights.” Many a church or NGO hired interns to help with basic stuff for low-income Canadians–things like summer camps for kids who couldn’t otherwise go, etc. Also, just as a side note, “reproductive rights” needs to be very much challenged as a term, something the media rarely does.

Meta